From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: 857348270@qq.com
cc: pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: BUG #17837: The potential risks associated with executing
 "commit" in a procedure.
In-reply-to: <17837-9e65be9846767162@postgresql.org>
References: <17837-9e65be9846767162@postgresql.org>
Comments: In-reply-to PG Bug reporting form <noreply@postgresql.org>
	message dated "Mon, 13 Mar 2023 12:40:11 -0000"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <2179739.1678739011.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2023 16:23:31 -0400
Message-ID: <2179740.1678739011@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/2179740.1678739011%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

PG Bug reporting form <noreply@postgresql.org> writes:
> Recently, I have noticed that executing "commit" in a procedure calls
> PreCommit_Portals in the kernel, which sets the resowner of the top level
> portal to null. However, subsequent statements still use this portal, and
> its resowner remains null. Is there any risk associated with this or could
> it lead to unexpected behavior?

I do not see any reason to believe there's a bug here.  After the
COMMIT, CurrentResourceOwner won't be pointing at the portal's
resowner anymore, but at a resowner belonging to the newly-started
transaction (cf AtStart_ResourceOwner).  The portal's resowner would
only have been used for resources that went away at commit, so it's
not needed anymore.  Nor is there any code that would try to
re-install that resowner as active.

			regards, tom lane